No matter how much someone dislikes the GOP, it is nigh impossible to credibly defend Obama.

compared to Bush he's bloody excellent.

That's like saying "compared to Camel's, Marlboro is excellent". You are comparing products which are both bad for you. And you are buying into advertisement and think you're clever when you are making "informed" choice. Fucking funny as hell. _________________“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”

No matter how much someone dislikes the GOP, it is nigh impossible to credibly defend Obama.

Pffff ! One year of constant and noticeable progresses you had made, swept aside in a single line !
I guess you mean that you dislike the GOP and you find nothing defending Obama credible. Don't vote!_________________

If it's on record, then you should be held accountable to it. If it's not, then it probably shouldn't headline the daily mail.

I don't see what difference it makes whether it's on or off the record. What a person says reflects their feelings, beliefs, and values, all of which are important in selecting a public official.

If Democrat Clinton says something like this, it is a historical reference and a testament to the success of the civil rights movement. But if a Republican says something like this, it is a racial slur and proof once and for all what kind of racist haters all Republicans are!!!1!! It will be on the front page of every newspaper, headlining the nightly TV news, having entire blog pages filled about it, and setting the social media echo chamber afire with anger and resentment. There will be protesters with signs, and probably some violence in Oakland. Hollywood celebrities will jump on the bandwagon and make hateful remarks about the person who said it. Political cartoons will be drawn showing KKK members and crosses burning.

Three days after Mitt Romney toured the Hurricane Isaac damage and flooding, Obama has finally showed up to bee-bop around. Nice to see he could fit it into his schedule.

White House staff claims, "Yeah, but Obama scheduled his visit first." (which probably isn't even true, since they didn't announce plans to do so until the same morning Romney took off to head down there, canceling a campaign trip to a battleground state to do it).

Obama was preceded by his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, who diverted from the campaign trail to Louisiana on Friday to inspect the fallout from Hurricane Isaac a day after accepting his party’s nomination for the November 6 election.

Yeah. The GOP ideas that "didn't work in the past, don't work now, and will never work". Unlike Obama's ideas, which are working so well.

Obama's ideas work, evidently, as designed. It's only the little fact that he duped delusional masses into believing that those ideas are supposed to help THEM. Which is why I find hillarious that would-be "liberals" are rooting for Obama._________________“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”

No matter how much someone dislikes the GOP, it is nigh impossible to credibly defend Obama.

compared to Bush he's bloody excellent.

That's like saying "compared to Camel's, Marlboro is excellent". You are comparing products which are both bad for you. And you are buying into advertisement and think you're clever when you are making "informed" choice. Fucking funny as hell.

I remember when I was about 10 years old, I went to my mother complaining that I had a headache. My father told me, "You know, when I get a headache, I can make it go away just like that (snapping his fingers)." Of course I was very interested. He said, "I just take a hammer, and I pound it on my big toe until I can't take it any more, and like magic, the headache is gone."

I remember when I was about 10 years old, I went to my mother complaining that I had a headache. My father told me, "You know, when I get a headache, I can make it go away just like that (snapping his fingers)." Of course I was very interested. He said, "I just take a hammer, and I pound it on my big toe until I can't take it any more, and like magic, the headache is gone."

I feel like I just discovered the Rosetta stone. :lol:_________________Your argument is invalid.

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been caught. And the website scandal may also impact the Virginia U.S. Senate race that has former Governor Tim Kaine as the Democrats' nominee against ex-Senator and Governor George Allen. Why?

As reported in all manner of media outlets in September of 2010 (here at the Huffington Post, here on The Today Show and here in a 25-minute presentation at George Washington University posted on YouTube) it was then-DNC Chairman Kaine on whose watch the new DNC website was launched.

Now the fibs are the centerpiece of the Democratic National Committee's revamped Obama-saluting website as the Democrats gather for their Charlotte convention. And Wasserman Schultz, of course, is the DNC chair -- succeeding Kaine --by the grace of the Obama White House. Which certainly had the ability to block or change the contents -- and hasn't.

What are the lies?

Lie Number One: Check the "Our History" section, found here of the DNC's website. See it? The history section -- now written to reflect the history of the Obama administration -- begins with this breathtakingly bold lie:

For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights…..

Lie Number Two: Then check here to see the DNC's "Issues" section on civil rights. That section begins with a second bold lie. This one:

Democrats have a long and proud history of defending Civil Rights and expanding opportunity for all Americans.

The DNC website in both its history and issues sections is literally wiped clean of any reference that this is the party that spent platform after platform after platform building a culture of racism.

Playing the race card, as it is politely called today.

There is zero indication on the revamped DNC website that not only are those first lines in each section blatant untruths, but that in those "more than 200 years" the party was a ferocious supporter of every race-judging idea imaginable, including slavery, segregation, and lynching.

Kaine even agreed to a short video version that begins by briefly saying:

Democrats are the party of Jefferson, who declared that we are all created equal. And we worked long and hard to make that real.

The video immediately skips from Jefferson -- to the 1900s.

Hmmmm. What might have happened between the time Jefferson left the White House in 1809 -- and the time the video picks up -- in 1920?

Specifically, neither the new history and issues sections of the Obama-controlled, Wasserman-Schultz-run DNC website, not to mention the video, ever whispers a hint that the Democrats:

· Supported slavery in 6 platforms from 1840-1860.
· Opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution that successively wiped out slavery and gave both legal rights and voting rights to black Americans.
· Supported segregation actively or by silence in 20 platforms from 1868-1948.
· Opposed anti-lynching laws, specifically supported by the GOP in four platforms between 1912 and 1928.
· Opposed the GOP-sponsored Civil Rights Acts of 1866, which focused on legal equality for blacks.
· Opposed the GOP on giving voting rights to blacks in the District of Columbia in 1867. The legislation was passed over the Democrats' objection..
· Nominated an 1868 presidential ticket of New York Governor Horatio Seymour and ex-Missouri Congressman Francis Blair. The Democrats pledged they would declare the Civil Rights laws passed by the GOP "null and void" and would refuse to enforce them. They lost to Ulysses Grant.
· Opposed the Enforcement Acts, three laws passed by the GOP between 1870 and 1871 targeting the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and making it a federal crime to block the right of blacks to vote, hold office, serve on juries and have equal protection of the laws with whites.
· Opposed the GOP Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited discrimination of blacks in public accommodations.
· Used the Ku Klux Klan as what Columbia University historian Eric Foner calls "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party." Nor is there mention of the infamous 1924 Democratic Convention -- the "Klanbake" as it is known to history because hundreds of the delegates were Klan members. The Klan-written platform mixed the traditional Democratic message of progressivism and racism in the Klan-written platform.
· Repealed the Civil Rights laws enacted by GOP Congresses and presidents, already damaged by the Supreme Court. When Democrats gained control of both Congress and the White House in 1892, the Democrats' President Grover Cleveland signed the repeal on February 8, 1894.

None of this stark, vicious and frequently violent racial history, much of it detailed in Bruce Bartlett's Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past, is mentioned on the new website.

There is no polite way to put it. This DNC website presentation is a lie.

A deliberate, willful and very big lie. Hiding from the young, the innocent and the unwary the cold, hard and true facts of the Democratic Party's horrific racial history.

As we noted in this space four years ago when the Democrats were preparing to nominate then-Senator Obama, America's liberal party was ruthless then when it came to concealing the long, ghastly tale of their culture of racism.

Here's the party's history section as preserved on their website in 2008. Alas for the DNC, this fancy-tale is still findable on the web here.

As we wrote at the time, the 2008 party history skips neatly from pre-Civil War 1848 and picks up again when "the 19th Century came to a close." Effectively skipping all the history noted above. This is the same formula adopted by the 2010 video, except the video moves the clock further back to Jefferson's presidency before performing the same trick of skipping to the dawn of the 20th century.

The party made another version of this same lie when redoing their website for 2010, saying, as captured by the Romantic Poet's Weblog:

"Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That's why we've worked to pass every one of our nation's Civil Rights laws…."
Now.

Given the sheer boldness of the lie -- literally akin to writing a history of Germany that ends in 1933 and resumes in 1946, neatly skipping those historic trivialities of Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, and the mass murder of six million Jews (not to mention that small skirmish called World War II) -- why is there any surprise, any surprise at all, at the recent repeated surfacing of the culture of racism -- judging others by skin color -- by Obama media allies and politicians?

This cultural rot has been the backbone of American liberalism and its political party the Democrats -- for 212 years.

No wonder the DNC feels it has to lie.

_________________Always do the opposite of what SJWs say.

Obama played the race card. Hillary played the woman card. America played the Trump card.

Democrats are the party of Jefferson, who declared that we are all created equal. And we worked long and hard to make that real.

OK then, irrespective of any political involvement... I find this one just... hilarious !
Does this mean that democrats have had a long and hard time... copulating ?
Horresco referens !_________________

I was bewildered at the time, of course. Since then, I have come to value the statement as a perverted sort of wisdom.

I also once (around 8 years old or so) asked him if we could get a snowmobile, and he said, "Yeah; we'll get one right after we get the helicopter." For weeks I was eagerly anticipating the imminent arrival of our helicopter.

I was bewildered at the time, of course. Since then, I have come to value the statement as a perverted sort of wisdom.

I also once (around 8 years old or so) asked him if we could get a snowmobile, and he said, "Yeah; we'll get one right after we get the helicopter." For weeks I was eagerly anticipating the imminent arrival of our helicopter.

good one _________________“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”

I remember when I was about 10 years old, I went to my mother complaining that I had a headache. My father told me, "You know, when I get a headache, I can make it go away just like that (snapping his fingers)." Of course I was very interested. He said, "I just take a hammer, and I pound it on my big toe until I can't take it any more, and like magic, the headache is gone."

Dad's have the best jokes._________________I call for full employment is a call for war!

Obama has been - and will continue to be - a decent President. However, I'm not entirely sure if "decent" is good enough given the times we live in. The oil-guzzling, post-war age of plenty is fast coming to an end but everyone is in denial about it. It will take vision and leadership to drag us into the future. Obama is just too quiet. We need a firebrand.

If it's on record, then you should be held accountable to it. If it's not, then it probably shouldn't headline the daily mail.

I don't see what difference it makes whether it's on or off the record. What a person says reflects their feelings, beliefs, and values, all of which are important in selecting a public official.

If Democrat Clinton says something like this, it is a historical reference and a testament to the success of the civil rights movement. But if a Republican says something like this, it is a racial slur and proof once and for all what kind of racist haters all Republicans are!!!1!! It will be on the front page of every newspaper, headlining the nightly TV news, having entire blog pages filled about it, and setting the social media echo chamber afire with anger and resentment. There will be protesters with signs, and probably some violence in Oakland. Hollywood celebrities will jump on the bandwagon and make hateful remarks about the person who said it. Political cartoons will be drawn showing KKK members and crosses burning.

a relevant example to illustrate your point would be good right now._________________I call for full employment is a call for war!

Yeah. The GOP ideas that "didn't work in the past, don't work now, and will never work". Unlike Obama's ideas, which are working so well.

Obama's ideas work, evidently, as designed. It's only the little fact that he duped delusional masses into believing that those ideas are supposed to help THEM. Which is why I find hillarious that would-be "liberals" are rooting for Obama.

If his intent is to bring about the collapse of the U.S. as we know it, then it's working. I am very reluctant to believe that is actually what he wants. If his intent is to bring about massive wealth transfer under the delusion that effecting it any and all costs is actually beneficial to the poor and blacks, then this is also working, but those costs are unacceptable and the net result will hurt everybody, including the poor and blacks, much more than it will help them.

No true liberal could ever support Obama, who is the most authoritarian President this country has ever seen and has set us back 50 years in terms of civil rights (and by "civil rights", I don't mean "African-American rights", I mean "individual rights"). Getting the military to advance its schedule on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" by a couple years does not make up for persecuting whistle-blowers, wholesale invasion of privacy, cronyism and corporatism, the individual health care mandate, assassinating citizens, and a lack of transparency and wholesale use of populist propaganda we haven't seen since the McCarthy era.

Obama has been - and will continue to be - a decent President. However, I'm not entirely sure if "decent" is good enough given the times we live in. The oil-guzzling, post-war age of plenty is fast coming to an end but everyone is in denial about it. It will take vision and leadership to drag us into the future. Obama is just too quiet. We need a firebrand.